Friday, April 27, 2012

"WHEN GREAT powers begin to experience erosion in their global standing, their leaders inevitably strike a pose of denial. At the dawn of the twentieth century, as British leaders dimly discerned such an erosion in their country’s global dominance, the great diplomat Lord Salisbury issued a gloomy rumination that captured at once both the inevitability of decline and the denial of it. “Whatever happens will be for the worse,” he declared. “Therefore it is our interest that as little should happen as possible.” Of course, one element of decline was the country’s diminishing ability to influence how much or how little actually happened.

"We are seeing a similar phenomenon today in America, where the topic of decline stirs discomfort in national leaders. In September 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed a “new American Moment” that would “lay the foundations for lasting American leadership for decades to come.” A year and a half later, President Obama declared in his State of the Union speech: “Anyone who tells you that America is in decline . . . doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” A position paper from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated flatly that he “rejects the philosophy of decline in all of its variants.” And former U.S. ambassador to China and one-time GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman pronounced decline to be simply “un-American.”

"Such protestations, however, cannot forestall real-world developments that collectively are challenging the post-1945 international order, often called Pax Americana, in which the United States employed its overwhelming power to shape and direct global events. That era of American dominance is drawing to a close as the country’s relative power declines, along with its ability to manage global economics and security."...MORE...LINK

"The sovereign debt crisis in the European Union can be summed up fairly simply: The governments of overspending nations are asking the governments of fiscally prudent nations to prop them up. The prudent nations, whose governments pay their obligations out of revenue, rather than by selling bonds, tend to be those in the more financially conservative parts of Europe, such as Finland, Holland, and Germany. Those nations that are waist deep in debt, whose bond offerings have in some cases been reduced to junk bond status, tend to be in the south of Europe around the Mediterranean Sea.

"As financial analysts look at the finance ministries and the economies of Greece, Portugal, Italy, and Spain, it seems as if the moment one crisis passes another arises. Recently, concern about a possible default on Spanish bonds is driving down the stock markets in Europe. Only by piggybacking on the creditworthiness of stronger E.U. economies and relying on the money that the strong economies can contribute toward the myriad bailouts can the improvident PIIGS nations dream of paying bondholders for their sovereign debts.

"More and more, it seems that the stronger E.U. nations who have been paying their own debts are unhappy about providing bailouts for those who have not. Elections in Finland a few months ago presented evidence of a genuine popular revolt against doing more to help bail out nations such as Greece.

"Professor Hans-Werner Sinn of Germany has recently said that German taxpayers perceive a dangerous increase in credit risk to their nation from the many bailout schemes. “The euro-system is near explosion. It’s a horror scenario,” the professor told the Austrian Economics Academy recently. Sinn warned that Germany is already taking the risk for much of the £1.72 trillion in rescue plans for the debtor nations, which could place catastrophic debts on Germans in the future."..MORE...LINK

Among the GOP victories in 2010, none was sweeter than that of Marco Rubio. The charismatic young Cuban-American challenged Gov. Charlie Crist in a Senate primary, ran him out of the party and swept to victory by 19 points in a three-way race. Among those mentioned as running mates for Mitt Romney, it is Rubio who generates the most excitement. That he is young, Hispanic and conservative, and his place on the ticket might secure Florida, are the cards he brings to the table.

So it was a surprise this week to see Rubio being chaperoned over to the Brookings Institution by Sen. Joe Lieberman to take final vows as the newest neoconservative. John Quincy Adams’ declaration that America goes not "abroad in search of monsters to destroy," says Rubio, is an idea that he rejects. A wiser guide, said the senator, is Bob Kagan, Barack Obama’s favorite neocon, who calls it a myth that America is in decline and who urges a more robust and interventionist foreign policy. Rubio says that on arrival in the Senate, he was astonished to find conservative colleagues advocating "withdrawal from Afghanistan and staying out of Libya."

"Today in the U.S. Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left," Rubio joked.

But is it leftist for senators, after 10 years of fighting two wars, with 6,500 dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk and a harvest of hatred reaped, to think that perhaps it may not have been wise to plunge into Mesopotamia and the Hindu Kush?

"I always start," said Rubio, "by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. … The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia."

This is not a bold new idea. It is an old cliche. We must fight them over there so we do not have to fight them over here....MORE...LINK

"(NaturalNews) In an astonishing bit of unexpected news, a senior State Department official has announced, "The war on terror is over." This stems from the idea, reports the National Journal, that, "it is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists."...

"This is great news, isn't it? If the "War on Terror" is over, then we can repeal and reverse all the ridiculous police state laws that were put in place to protect us from terrorism... right? I mean, can we now fire the TSA? They were only put in place after the "terror" attacks on 9/11. If the war on terror is over, the TSA is no longer needed (even if you assume they were effective at all, which they weren't). Can we now repeal the Patriot Act which was passed out of an urgency to defend America from terrorists? Will Obama nullify the NDAA that he recently signed, which uses the excuse of the "war on terror" to legalize secret arrests and the stripping of due process from all Americans? Can we now deconstruct the DHS and fire Janet Napolitano who has become the (nauseating) face of "fear your neighbor" campaigns?"...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

There's a great quip in the above video, I'm not sure, but I think its by BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones, where he sarcastically says something like Gee, there are only a handful of companies in the world that will demolish steel frame skyscrapers because it's so dangerous, and they charge a huge price, but I'm glad to know it can now be done so easily simply by setting a few scattered fires, which somehow demolished WTC 7.

This perfectly illustrates the 9/11 fairy tale that so many Americans believe.

I can't say if Americans lack critical thinking abilities and are overly willing to engage in the kind of suspended disbelief it takes to buy the official narrative of 9/11 because they've spent too much time reading the bible, because they've spent too much time watching Hollywood movies, or because they've been brainwashed by government schools to believe whatever the government tells them, but I can say that anyone who has seriously looked into the collapse of WTC 7 in particular and still doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job either has a child like mind, or a capacity for denial that borders on mental illness.

"Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound."...MORE...LINK----------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

It takes a particular kind of sadism to collaborate with Zionist Jews to the extent that so many of these contemporary Anglo-fascists have, and then a particular kind of sickness to try to pass themselves off as Christians or advocates of Western civilization after doing so.

But as the above paragraph illustrates, these Anglo-fascists clearly have the "stiff upper lip" that it takes to sell their souls and sell out all decency to the devil himself for a handful of shekels.

But what else would one expect from an "upper crust" of money-worshipping degenerates?

***

It must be said that Anglo-fascist elites are Zionist-collaborating enemies of Christianity and Western civilization, second only to Zionist Jews in their self-serving, anti-Western treachury.

Like the Zionist Jews, they are sick, insular narcissists, egoists and money worshippers who feign sophistication, righteousness, piousness and moralism, but only to mask their innate greed and avarice.

The English masses who settled much of the Western world did well to remove themselves as far as possible from the treacherous Anglo-fascist elites who thought they owned them.

"The big news out of the French election: Marine Le-Pen, the head of the far right wing National Front party, secured 20 percent of the vote in the first round of voting...

"The other big event in Europe this weekend was in the Netherlands, where a budget deal collapsed thanks to a revolt led by another right winger: Geert Wilders...

"There's something that's worth noting, which is that far-right wing parties in Europe frequently have a tinge of economic liberalism to them. As stated above, Wilders' party opposed cuts due to the impact on the elderly. Le Pen's solution would be for France to abandon the Euro (eventually) and monetize its debt through its own currency.

"Core Europe has been worried for some time that an election in a peripheral country would produce a result that was anti-Euro. However the latest developments show strength for anti-Euro candidates in core countries."...MORE...LINK

Populist, nationalist and right-wing parties are going to enjoy increasing popularity not only in Europe, but in the U.S. as the Western pyramid scheme economies that ultimately transfer the bulk of wealth to a narrow, insatiably greedy group of corrupt insiders continue to deteriorate.

European countries increasingly realizes that the U.S. Wall Street and U.K. City of London-based Zionist-Globalist economic hegemony is at the root of their economic and social problems, and because diaspora Zionist Jewry operates out of the left, this is going to lead to all manner of upheaval for those Zionist shill parties on the left masquerading as "liberals," and for neocon "conservatives."

The insular, self-serving Zionist Jews and Anglo-fascist and Anglo-Fabian elites who set up the post-war economic regime couldn't care less about the preservation Western civilization or the interests of the Western masses, and are only concerned with their own self-aggrandizement, and lining their own pockets.

Europeans and average Americans increasingly realize they've been set up as easy targets in a turkey shoot by these treacherous snakes and insiders who first get rich inflating economic bubbles, know exactly when to get out, and then pick up assets at ten cents on the dollar when the bubbles burst.

A civilization with sociopathic Zionist Jew and Anglo-fascist "leadership" that wants nothing more than to wring the masses for all their worth is a civilization that is in a death struggle with a treacherous parasite class congenitally incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

Monday, April 23, 2012

(By Chris Moore) -- Writing in the alternative media blog deLiberation, anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon observes that the "far right" Front National scored a big win in the recent French elections, and sees the victory, in part, as a consequence of other political parties' determination to suppress discussion of sensitive political issues.

Marine Le Pen and The French’s Front National are the big winners in the French elections yesterday. France’s Front National scored the best ever presidential campaign first-round result (18% of the votes).

As elsewhere in Europe, the French far right is dealing with matters other political parties prefer to avoid or shove under the carpet. Yesterday results proves that many French are primarily concerned with issues to do with immigration and ‘identity loss’. While the so called ‘far Right’ engages with these matters, the Left and the Centre parties perform an escapist attitude – they prefer to vet the discussion via different means such as political correctness and even legislation. The media, would also shy away from the subject and would prefer to gate-keep any attempt to deal with the ‘unpopular’ topic.

Clearly, the most important topic that the other political parties are avoiding is the Zionist question, and the fact that from the left-wing through the establishment right, the "mainstream" political parties have turned so many key Western political and economic institutions over to ideological Zionist network control, with the inevitable ensuing Middle East wars for Israel, and Western economic turmoil and growing income inequality being the most obvious consequences.

Atzmon sees the politically correct suppression of open political dialogue as a "ticking time bomb" that is likely to lead to ever more victories for the far right.

As the financial turmoil starts to bite, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a ticking bomb. The way to defuse the situation is to launch a free and open discussion on maters to do with ‘belonging’, ‘identity’ and ‘culture’. The Left has been confused about it all for decades. European Left is riddled with contradiction, it would, for instance, support national movement around the world but never at home. The Left would adorably support Palestinian nationalism in Gaza and the West Bank but it would oppose similar English or French patriotism at home. How do we explain or justify such an unprincipled political attitude?

The only explanation that suffices is that the Western left-wing has been as co-opted and compromised by the self-serving diaspora Jewish nationalist (Zionist) agenda (which opposes other Western nationalist movements) as the Western establishment right has been by the self-serving Israeli Zionist agenda and its attendant Middle East wars.

And not coincidentally, while the Western left pays lip service to Palestinian rights, it never quite seems to accomplish any concrete gains for Palestinian sovereignty or self-determination.

All of this raises an interesting question, namely how can a "left" that has turned over so much of its intellectual development and agenda-setting to ideological Jewish thought and interests still be considered "liberal," "leftist," or even "secular" at all?

Another point that must be addressed is whether this Zionist-corrupted left leadership is in fact playing on the same team as its supposed mainstream "opposition" -- namely the "conservative" Judeo-Christian Zionists. Are the Judeo-Marxist-Trotskyite leftists, the politically correct statist "liberals" (whose speech codes are designed to suppress any open discussion of the Jewish question) and the Judeo-Christian Zionist "conservatives" in fact all joined together at the axis of Judeo-worship?

If so, it would certainly explain why the leadership of all these elements refuses to acknowledge international Zionism as the massive ideological movement comparable in scale and aggression to Communism and Nazism that it truly is. Additionally, it would explain the huge cognitive dissonance that Atzmon alludes to on the left.

And what about authentically liberal anti-Zionists like Atzmon himself? Should they really be fearful of "far right" populist movements with the potential for breaking up or disrupting the Zionist status-quo? How much worse can they possibly be than where the left-right-statist Judeo-supremacists are leading the world?

It's clear that, at least in the short term, "far right" or not, any populist mass movement with the potential for challenging the Zionist supremacist agenda and disrupting its grip on so many Western institutions is a force for good, and a force that is increasingly necessary.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

"That the British empire expanded under the rubric of an openly racist doctrine, given full-throated if half-ironic expression in Kipling’s paean to the joys of the White Man’s Burden, is today acknowledged by all but the sort of unreconstructed Tories who don’t dare show their faces anymore. The British are so mortified by their dark legacy that they’ve outlawed even the faintest public expression of sympathy for the worldview that sustained it – and suffused British culture – since the Victorian era: today, in “free” Britannia, you can be arrested for making an ethnic joke in a pub – yet it is perfectly legal to call for (and launch) a war that will inevitably result in the deaths of untold numbers of dark-skinned peoples.

"Which brings us to an interesting point: how is it that nearly all the perceived enemies of the US, the Western alliance, and “democracy” in general are non-whites?"...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

At the height of the British Empire, when the Crown's racism and insatiable greed was splayed naked for all to see, was when the British "upper crust" revealed its true essence.

Today, the Anglo elites couch their craven globalist ambitions in all manner of politically correct platitudes and elaborate window dressing that adopts a grand pose of benign selflessness to paper over blatant wars of aggression and the quest for geopolitical hegemony, but their true essence remains the same.

It's no accident that the Anglo-elites ended up in bed with the Zionist Jews in this massive fraud. After all, these are very similar creatures in terms of the inbred schizophrenia, double standards, and hypocrisy inherent in their operating "principles." Both will endlessly and haughtily hold forth about how civilized and advanced their culture is, and how morally enlightened and high-minded their agendas are ("We're a chosen nation of priests!" declare the Jews; "We're spreading freedom and democracy as a gift to the world, and ridding the Middle East of anti-Semitism!" declare the Anglo elites) even as they unapologetically slaughter women and children in land and resource grabs motivated by sheer, murderous greed.

As far as I'm concerned, "The Gifts of the Jews" amount to this: Whoever climbs into bed with them is ultimately revealed for all of the world to see as the highly concealed satanists and craven, money-worshipping sociopaths they truly are -- of the kind that masks their sickness beneath layer upon layer of empty piousness that can never quite cover over their pathology.

The self-serving, inbred Anglo-fascists and Zionist Jews think they're so clever, portraying their pathologies as high-minded principles, but they're not fooling anyone anymore, which is why Western civilization (and the rest of the world) is in the process of rejecting what little moral authority they have remaining, and will ultimately seize the levers of power from their sweaty, clammy grasp.

The worst of the buggering Anglo "elites" haven't changed much from their British Empire days, they've just managed to conceal their greed and avarice behind more sophisticated window dressing, and laughable affectations of anti-racism, and enlisted in a partnership with equally craven Zionist Jews in order to fend off critics of their joint aggression with accusations of "anti-Semitism."

Looks like the hollow, self-righteous charlatans, moral frauds and money-worshippers are increasingly caught in flagrante for all the world to see their joint venture in sicko wamongering and world perversion.

One of the more outrageous articles to appear recently describes how likely Republican Party presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enjoy a close personal relationship based on their simultaneous employment at the Boston Consulting Group in 1976. The article also explains how that relationship has continued, with Netanyahu briefing Romney on the subject of Iran before the March Super Tuesday primaries. Earlier, in December, Romney criticized Newt Gingrich over a comment about Palestinians, asserting that “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’”

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Romney is handing the exercise of US foreign policy on the Middle East over to Israel. And it also doesn’t take any particular insight to realize that if a foreign head of state is advising a presidential candidate on foreign policy in any context it is completely unacceptable interference in the domestic politics of the United States. So why isn’t the media screaming in outrage? Well, the usual reason: that Israel is untouchable.

As loathsome as Obama has been in his craven surrender to Israeli interests, there has always been to the saving grace that one knows deep down that the president despises Netanyahu even as he fears him and the power of the Israel Lobby. Not so with Mitt, who will be an enthusiastic puppet in whatever game the Israelis decide to play...LINK

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

People who know better gave Rachel Maddow's new book unqualified praise in blurbs on the dust jacket. Maybe they see more good than bad in the book, which is called "Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power."...

Maddow's book picks out episodes, from the war on Vietnam to the present -- episodes in the expansion of the military industrial complex and in the aggrandizement of presidential war powers. Some of the episodes are extremely revealing and well told. Maddow's is perhaps the best collection I've seen of nuclear near-miss and screw-up stories. But much is missing from the book. And some of what is there is misleading.

Missing is the fact that U.S. wars kill people other than U.S. troops. The U.S. Civil War's battles, in Maddow's view "remain, to this day, America's most terrifying and costly battles." That depends what (or whom) you consider a cost. A listing of U.S. dead on the television show "Nightline," Maddow writes, "would be a televised memorial to those who had died in a year of war." Would it really? Everyone who had died? Victims of U.S. wars make an appearance in these pages as the sex slaves of U.S. mercenaries, but not as the victims of murder on a large scale. This absence is in contrast to a large focus on the damage done to U.S. troops, and a much larger focus on financial costs -- and not even on the tradeoffs, not even on the things that we could be spending money on, but rather on the "threat" of deficits and debt. Maddow notes the dramatic conversion from weapons factories to automobile, tractor, and refrigerator factories that followed World War II, but she does not propose such a conversion process now.

Missing is resistance and conscientious objection. "War will exist," wrote President John Kennedy, "until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today." That day grows more distant with books like Maddow's. In "Drift," everything warriors do is called "defense" (except with the Russians whose actions are called "strategic (aka offensive)"; when the troops do things they are "serving"; they are "patriotic"; and in times when the military becomes widely respected that is considered a positive development. Jim Webb is "an extraordinary soldier." Soldiers in Vietnam "served honorably," but sadly the military was "diminished" and the troops "demoralized." Or is it de-moral-ized? Maddow fills out her book with dramatic accounts of Navy SEALs trying to invade Grenada that appear to have been included purely for the adventure drama or the pro-troopiness -- although there's always some SNAFU in such stories as well.

War, in Maddow's world, is not in need of abolition so much as proper execution, which sometimes means more massive and less hesitant execution. LBJ "tried to fight a war on the cheap," Maddow quotes a member of Johnson's administration as recalling. On the other hand, when Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf propose five or six aircraft carriers for the First War on Iraq, Maddow recounts that this "would leave naval power dangerously thin in the rest of the world." Dangerous for whom?...MORE...LINK

Sometimes a step back helps to provide perspective on a matter. President Obama provided such a step with his March 16 Executive Order—National Defense Resources Preparedness. In it we see in detail how completely the government may control our lives—euphemistically called the “industrial and technological base”—if the president were to declare a national emergency. It is instructive, if tedious, reading.

President Obama claims this authority under the Constitution and, vaguely, “the laws of the United States,” but it specifically names the Defense Production Act of 1950. As Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute and a Freeman columnist observed, the government’s authority to commandeer the economy, which was “abandoned” after World War II then substantially reinstated with the Korean War,

was retained afterward in the form of statutory authority for its reinstatement whenever the president might so order under the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. . . . Under this statute, the president has lawful authority to control virtually the whole of the U.S. economy whenever he chooses to do so and states that the national defense requires such a government takeover.

No Academic Exercise

The Executive Order, which requires no additional congressional approval, details who within the executive branch has what precise authority in the event the President invokes his emergency powers. We shouldn’t assume this is merely an academic exercise or that a third world war would need to break out. In the last decade, under circumstances representing no “existential threat” to our society, the executive branch has exercised extraordinary powers...MORE...LINK

On a recent trip to Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid down the law: America must threaten the Iranians with war if Tehran insists on pursuing its nuclear energy program. We are supposed to take seriously Netanyahu’s threats to strike Iran himself, in spite of the fact that Israel has neither the means nor the political resolve to do so. However, this is not the way Israel operates: their preferred method is to let Uncle Sam do their dirty work, as in Iraq, while they save their resources for aggression closer to home. The Israel-is-about-to-attack-Iran meme gives the Americans cover to take action in the name of preventing a supposedly greater catastrophe. With Israel playing the part of the unhinged pit-bull, Obama’s assigned role is that of the statesman, who is going to give the Iranians one “last chance,” as he put it.

In any case, the results of Netanyahu’s mission were unveiled on Saturday, when the New York Times revealed the opening negotiating position of the US and its European allies in the upcoming talks with Iran: the Western alliance is demanding the dismantling of the heavily fortified Fordo facility and the unconditional surrender of their entire stock of 20 percent enriched uranium.

Or else.

That Iran has every right to enrich uranium to 20 percent under the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), is considered irrelevant by the West: as in the case of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Iranians are considered guilty until proven innocent. They must somehow prove they aren’t building weapons: the logical impossibility of proving a negative is also considered irrelevant.

The official position of the US intelligence community remains the same: that the Iranians stopped work on a weapons program in 2003, haven’t resumed it, and there is no evidence they’ve decided to go that route. But why should a US President listen to his own intelligence agencies when the Israelis – and the British – are demanding action? We are apparently a prisoner of our own “allies,” and it is they who are pushing us to war with Iran. That is what this administration’s vaunted “internationalism” is all about...MORE...LINK

If you knew that you could live in luxury for the rest of your life but that by doing so it would absolutely destroy the future for your children, your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren would you do it? Well, that is exactly what we are doing as a nation. Over the past several decades, we have stolen 15 trillion dollars from future generations so that we could enjoy a dramatically inflated level of prosperity. Our 15 trillion dollar party has been a lot of fun, but what we have done to our children and our grandchildren has been beyond criminal. We ran up the greatest mountain of debt in the history of the planet and we are sticking them with the bill. Sadly, both political parties have been responsible for the big spending that has been going on. Both Democrats and Republicans have run up huge budget deficits when in power. But instead of learning the hard lessons of the past, both political parties continue to vote for even more debt. They would rather continue to steal trillions of dollars from future generations than have the party end and have to face the consequences.

And the consequences will be dramatic when the party ends. During fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent 3.7 trillion dollars but it only brought in 2.4 trillion dollars. That means that the U.S. government spent about 1.3 trillion dollars that it did not have. It is important to understand that even if the U.S. government spent that 1.3 trillion dollars on really stupid things, that money still got into the pockets of ordinary Americans who then spent it on things like food, gas, housing, etc. In turn, most of those that received money from providing those goods and services would spend it on other things.

So extra government spending can definitely stimulate the economy. The problem is that we have been doing it permanently. Since 1975, we have added more than 15 trillion dollars to the national debt. This has fueled a false prosperity that was way beyond what we could afford...

So when will it be time to seriously cut government spending?

The day never seems to arrive.

But even though the federal government has been pumping more than a trillion extra dollars into the economy every year, the economy has not shown much improvement. The percentage of working age Americans that have jobs has barely budged for over two years.

Yes, the policies of the Obama administration have stabilized the U.S. economy for the moment, but if he was actually going to tell the truth he would say something like this....

"By mortgaging the future of our children and our grand-children I have stabilized our economic statistics for the short-term. Unfortunately, I am going to have to continue to financially abuse future generations to keep us from falling into another Great Depression. Meanwhile, I am making our long-term financial problems far, far worse. But the most important thing is that I win re-election so that I can continue to be president. Thank you for being so selfish and so willing to destroy the future of your children. Vote for me in 2012 and let the party continue!"

Unfortunately, the party is going to come crashing to an end at some point.

Right now, the global financial system is based on the U.S. dollar and on U.S. government debt.

There will come a time when the rest of the world is going to get sick and tired of watching this Ponzi scheme play out and they are going to completely lose faith in the U.S. dollar and in U.S. government debt. In fact, there are already signs that this is starting to happen.

When faith in our currency and our debt is completely gone, it will be nearly impossible to get back and the game will be over...MORE...LINK

Friday, April 06, 2012

(LibertarianToday.com) -- by Chris Moore -- A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are speculating and arguing about what he will do if he doesn't win the GOP nomination for president.

In this Open Letter to Ron Paul, for example, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com argues that the Republican Party is hopelessly militant, corrupt, and pro-Big Government, hence Paul should run independently of the GOP in the likely event that he doesn't get top spot on its ticket.

Given that Paul's son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, is now vested in the Republican Party, I can see why this might be an excruciating decision for Ron. If he runs against the GOP and their candidate loses, the Party's long knives will be out for Rand in full force.

I don't know how it will end, but from a purely strategic perspective, I would personally like to see Ron Paul run against both Obama and the GOP.

As readers of this website and Judeofascism.com are well aware, in many ways my perspective is the antithesis to Jewish Zionist Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban, who says "I'm a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel."

Well, I'm a one issue guy, and my issue is anti-Zionism.

Unfortunately, I'm also about as poor as Haim Saban is rich. Regardless, I believe Zionism and its corrupting, warmongering, commie-fascist synthesis tentacles are destroying not only America, but Western civilization.

What this means is that whatever slows down the march of Zionism is good for America, and good for the world, and Ron Paul running as an independent would slow down the march of Zionism.

How so?

1)It would prevent Mitt Romney (or whoever the eventual GOP nominee is) and Barack Obama from getting into an Israel-first bidding war, each attempting to out-promise the other in a mad scramble for Zionist money and pro-Israel bona-fides. If Paul was running, he could point to both of candidates and declare of the inevitable Israel-first spectacle: Look at these guys, they're going to start WWIII just for Israel.

2)If Paul runs as an independent and doesn't win, he will almost certainly knock out the GOP candidate, which for the reasons laid out by Raimondo, would also be a good thing.

Of course, scenario #2 would leave Barack Obama as president for the next four years, which is not much of a consolation prize. But again, from the anti-Zionist perspective, this would be better than any non-Ron Paul Republican candidate winning the election.

Why? Because a GOP winner would have four years of having to pander and grovel to Israel-firsters, and escalate a Mideast confrontation with Iran to who knows where, whereas Barack Obama already has his pandering and grovelling behind him, and would be liberated from the tentacles of Zionism by fiat of the fact that he never has to win another election again in his life.

As he recently muttered to Russian President Dimitry Medvedev in another context, “This is my last election...After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Well, the same circumstance applies to his dealing with the Israel-first lobby and its lodestar hero, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- both of which Obama by now must resent the hell out of for their arrogance, imperiousness, extortion and bullying. After all, just below the surface, Obama vs. Netanyahu has been an ongoing battle royale.

So from the anti-Zionist standpoint, other than a Ron Paul presidency, what could be better than a president untethered from the long, warmongering, crypto-fascist tentacles of Zionism, and with an axe to grind against the Israel-first cabal, to boot?

This is no endorsement of Barack Obama, but until the Republicans prove they are capable of putting America and Western civilization ahead of the particularistic, self-serving, neo-fascist interests of the Zionist racket, as I see it, they deserve to be pummeled without mercy -- particularly since they hypocritically run as American patriots who are ethically and morally upstanding and will "set things right."

Only America-firsters, not Israel-firsters, will ever really set things right. The others, from whichever party, are cynical opportunists, crony gangsters and frauds. But better a liberated political hack like Obama than an indentured political hack like Romney or Rick Santorum.

When President Obama spoke before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee some weeks ago, he admonished those who engaged in “loose talk of war” about Iran. Apparently, his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn’t get the memo.

The Associated Press reported this week,

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear Saturday that time is running out for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program and said talks aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would resume in mid-April. With speculation over a possible U.S. or Israel military attack adding urgency to the next round of discussions in Istanbul set for April 13, Clinton said Iran's “window of opportunity” for a peaceful resolution “will not remain open forever.”

She also expressed doubt about whether Iran has any intention of negotiating a solution that satisfies the U.S., Israel and other countries that believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

That’s another memo Clinton seems not to have received. Both American and Israeli intelligence say that Iran has neither started to build a nuclear weapon nor even decided to do so in the future. Both also regard the Iranian government as a “rational actor.” (The American news media occasionally reports this, but then goes back to stating, as though it were uncontroversial, that Iran is building a nuclear arsenal.)

So why the conflicting signals from the U.S. government? This conflict can be seen in Obama’s own statements. While he calls for diplomacy and warns against loose war talk, he has imposed harsh economic sanctions that make the daily lives of average Iranians miserable, has rejected “containment,” and boasted that he doesn’t “bluff.”

If Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, if it has not decided to do so, and if Obama wants to use diplomacy to discuss Iran’s uranium-enrichment program (which its government says is for peaceful purposes), why is he pushing sanctions designed to bring the Iranian economy down? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if there is really something to negotiate about, for Obama to treat the Iranian regime with respect?

The saber rattlers will say that sanctions are needed to get Iran to the negotiating table. But that’s an evasion. The official experts, as well as others, say no bomb is being built. Iran is doing what it is free to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — enriching uranium for medical and energy purposes. It is subjected to inspections and its uranium is under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There is no constructive purpose to the sanctions and war talk. Clinton aggravates an already dangerous situation when she talks ominously about windows closing and clocks running. She sounds bent on war, with Obama just a bit less so.

Why?

Two reasons suggest themselves. It’s an election year. The Republican presidential candidate (unless it’s Ron Paul) can be expected to portray Obama as insufficiently bloodthirsty. Mitt Romney hopes we’ll ignore Obama’s expansion of the criminal drone war in Pakistan and Somalia, his due-process-free assassination of Americans in Yemen, his autocratic intervention in Libya, his continuation of the brutal occupation of Afghanistan, and his signing legislation to codify the president’s power to detain even American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. Romney’s foreign-policy team are some of the same people who gave us the lie-based invasion of Iraq, which was responsible for the deaths of well over a million people and the creation of more than four million refugees. Word is that the presumptive candidate plans to hammer Obama on his handling of foreign affairs. According to the Washington Post, “In his speeches, Romney has proposed a more confrontational approach to China, Russia, Iran and other countries.”

The Obama campaign may have calculated that they can’t afford to look weak on Iran. Yet this is not the only reason. Israel’s top officials appear to have decided that an attack on Iran is imperative. But without U.S. help, Israel’s air force can do no more than set Iran’s (peaceful) nuclear program back for a brief time. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues his threatening talk, supported by the Israel lobby in the United States. Israel-partisans in the U.S. media routinely channel Netanyahu’s war talk to the American public in order to build sympathy for the nonexistent Iranian threat to Israel.

Obama says he wants peace not war. When will he begin to act like it?...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Well, at least now we know who to blame for the high gasoline prices: not just the Obama administration, not just Israel and its Israel-first agents roosting in the U.S., not just the neocon wing of the GOP ratcheting the warmongering rhetoric higher and higher...but rather, the entire incompetent, monomaniacal two-party regime and its Beltway orgy of corruption.

These people can't see the forest for the trees. They exist in a gold-plated bubble, completely removed from the day to day reality, struggles and hardships of average Americans.

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

(By Chris Moore) -- The following video appears to be produced by a White nationalist, and while I disagree with White nationalism's conclusions and remedies, I wholeheartedly agree with this video's analysis about what is really going going on in terms of Israeli and Beltway Washington warmongering, and why.

(Given the moral equivalence between Nazism and Communism, I have no more problem running a hard right-wing critique of Zionism than I have running a hard left-wing critique of Zionism. In fact, to overthrow the crypto-fascist, Zionist paradigm, the Zionists and their accomplices are going to have to be squeezed from both the left and the right.)

After the video, I will make a comment on why I disagree with White nationalism, and the paradigm I would like to see succeed the current Washington neolib/neocon Zionist status-quo.

But first, this excellent critique that zeroes in like a laser on how and why these Israeli and Diaspora Zionists and their Beltway accomplices are the #1 threat to the planet.

My theory is that Western civilization itself was one huge melting pot of genetic blends from Greece and the southern tip of Italy up through the Scandinavian countries and everything in between, all essentially built around Christian and Greco-Roman thought, ethics, morals, values, ideology, disciplines, etc., in conjunction with the magnificent local cultures.

Later, the Germanic and Norman peoples became the standard-bearer for Western civilization (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire), and brought it to new heights. They additionally imposed Western civilization on the insular English through powerful leaders like William the Conquerer, and then the English themselves made huge contributions.

It was only with the so-called Enlightenment that Western civilization began to fracture and degrade, culminating in essentially tribal nationalist wars based on colonial greed and power worship (WWI and WWII). Jewish bankers and revolutionaries additionally encouraged this fracturing and bloodletting, implementing Communism as a Trojan horse.

The point is that at the macro level, in the biggest picture, I don't see how the West can play the racial tribal game again, and ever get back to where it wants to be. That just ends in balkanization, and the kind of tribal bloodletting that was so harmful to Whites in World Wars One and Two, and that is culminating in even more bloodletting since the Zionists have exploited those conflicts (WWII and the Holocaust in particular) to claw their way to the top.

In fact, as you will see if you watch the video above, the (apparently) White nationalist narrator notes that Zionist Jews (and their many left-right accomplices from all races, but especially a lot of Whites, I might add) are an existential threat not only to Whites, but to 99% of humanity.

Actually, they're a theat to 100% of humanity, because Jews and their accomplices are just as vulnerable to nuclear radiation as anyone else if nuclear bombs start flying.

The American melting pot is the paradigm we need to pursue as the answer to racist, warmongering, Zionist Beltway status-quo, based on the massive, broiling European melting pot model that comprised the civilization that was once the greatest in the history of man -- Western civilization.

It seems that the Republican presidential aspirants’ fervor to confront Islam has receded a bit with the decline and fall of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, but one can likely still count on Rick Santorum to come up with some bon mots on the threat posed by Shariah law. Those who fear that hands will soon be lopped off shoplifters caught in Cleveland appear to be making much ado about nothing, but there is a much broader and more insidious agenda that is really playing out behind the scenes. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum are all smart enough to know that Islamic law is hardly poised to dominate the U.S. legal system, but they are using it as the wedge issue to deny the patriotism of Muslims in general and fuel the demands to exercise a military option against Iran.

Promoting fear of Shariah law is essentially a red herring. There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes. They are Saudi Arabia and Iran, one a close ally of the United States and the West and the other currently playing the cameo role of a threat to the entire world, to borrow a phrase from the eminent Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel. The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law.

Depicting Islam as manifestly medieval, backward, and cruel is not new, as it has been going on in one form or another since the Israelis and Palestinians first locked horns. Recognizing that the propaganda that is being ground out in the mainstream media derives from that conflict, it is easy to understand why Muslims are persistently portrayed in negative terms. And it should be equally unsurprising to learn that those who are denigrating Muslims and Islam are almost invariably among the most uncritical supporters of Likudist Israel and all its works.

The list of those who are passionate about how bad Islam is has a familiar ring to it. It is led by the truly vicious and fanatical like Pamela Geller and includes John Bolton, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Charles Krauthammer. Geller has written that there is “a systematic campaign to impose Shariah on the secular marketplace” and to pervert the justice system in favor of Islamic exemptions, a theme that has been picked up by Gingrich and Santorum, both of whom favor pointless laws banning Shariah in any form. In a milder form, the same viewpoint is reflected in both the news coverage and the editorial pages of newspapers like The New York Post, The Washington Post, and even The New York Times. The arguments being made are not necessarily intended to convince anyone other than those who are already more than half onboard, but they are designed to keep the issue of how Muslims are not quite like the rest of us on the back burner to so that the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and other Arabs will somehow always seem suspect. It also fuels other narratives that the neoconservatives and their friends support, like perpetual warfare against Islamic countries to bring about regime changes, suggesting that there is something that is not quite right in the way that Muslim countries govern themselves. The real objective is, however, spelled out in the paper that the neocons presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, “A Clean Break,” advocating the breakup of Arab countries into smaller components that would be perpetually at war with themselves, thereby assuring Israeli predominance in the region. As is so often the case, the conversation in the United States is really all about Israel.

The broader agenda of Islamophobia also fuels arguments to continue to stay the course in places like Afghanistan...MORE...LINK -------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Okay, the opportunistic xenophobia of the GOP has been discussed to death all over mainstream media. So let's start discussing the Zionist agenda. More specifically, let's start discussing Jewish Zionist domination of the Democratic Party, and what role that has played in our endless neolib, neocon wars.

Here's a primer from Newsweek's Daily Beast about the extent to which the Democratic Party is utterly dominated by Jews -- virtually all of whom are staunchly pro-Israel to outright "Israel-first" Zionists.

It seems that half the problem behind the endless Beltway warmongering and wars of aggression is going all but ignored.

Giraldi is doing his best, but who at AntiWar.com has got his back on the question of Jewish Zionist domination of the left? It's hardly an "anti-war" enterprise to ignore 50% of the warmongering problem.

Lawrence Davidson explains why Thomas Friedman, one of the most widely read editorial writers in the United States, is confused and unreliable when it comes to the Middle East.

Friedman’s frustrationsIn a piece entitled "A festival of lies" published in the New York Times on 25 March, editorialist Thomas Friedman expressed his frustration with American foreign policy in the Middle East. "It’s time to rethink everything we are doing out there," he proclaimed. To be sure, he is not the only one frustrated by this situation, but in Friedman’s case it is best to ask just what it is he finds disconcerting about US behaviour?

Actually, he doesn’t formulate a list of his own, but instead latches on to one put together by the historian Victor Davis Hanson (a military historian whose specialty is ancient warfare) and published in the National Review. This is neither here nor there because Friedman tells us that Hanson is correct in all his particulars. So here are some examples of what Friedman via Hanson find frustrating about US policy in the region:

1. Giving all that military assistance (when we really should be helping the Arabs build schools)

3. "Keeping clear of maniacal regimes" (which then allows these regimes to either acquire nuclear capabilities, commit genocide or create "16 acres of rubble in Manhattan")

4. Propping up dictators (which is "odious and counterproductive")

Friedman notes the obvious: these sort of "policy options" cannot change the Middle East for the better. According to both him and Hanson, the region is a perpetual "mix of tribalism, Shi’i-Sunni sectarianism, fundamentalism and oil – oil that constantly tempts us to intervene or to prop up dictators".

All this might make sense to some readers of the New York Times, but it seems superficial and confused to me. After all, I am an historian too. My speciality is the development of US foreign policy in the Middle East. So what do I find frustrating about Friedman’s frustrations?

Frustrating frustrations1.To reduce the Middle East to tribalism, sectarianism, fundamentalism and oil is just stereotyping and inappropriate reductionism. You might as well reduce the US to Christian fundamentalism, Tea Party fanaticism, south-west-east sectional animosity and gas guzzling pickup trucks. Are they there? Yes. Are they the sum total of the USA? No. It is the same for the Middle East.

2. It is certainly a very good idea to stop giving so many of the region’s armies American weapons and training (and so stop "propping up the dictators), but before you go using the savings to build "community colleges across Egypt" as Friedman suggests, you better consider that Egypt and many other nations in the region are awash in college graduates who cannot find employment. The economies of the Middle East suffer from structural problems, part of which have to do with their ties to a Western-controlled world economy.

3. I can only imagine what Hanson and Friedman mean by "punitive interference without follow-up" being bad policy.

– Maybe they mean that when Ronald Reagan put troops in Lebanon in 1982 in support of the minority Maronite Christian attempt to subvert the country’s constitution there should have been sufficient military follow-up to decimate their rivals, the majority Lebanese Shi’is. Keep in mind that a similar follow-up in Iraq in 2003 killed up to a million people.

– Or perhaps when that same president (darling of all neocons) attacked the home of Muammar Gaddafi in 1986 ... setting in motion a chain of events that led two years later to the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie Scotland, he should have immediately followed through with a full scale invasion of Libya.

– Or when George Bush Senior chased Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991 he should of followed-up with an invasion of the country then and there instead of following through with draconian sanctions that eventually helped kill up to a million Iraqi poor children.

Supposedly all of these "follow-ups" represent policy options that would have resulted in a better, happier and more American-friendly Middle East. This sounds doubtful to me.

4. And what about the supposed mistake of "staying clear of maniacal regimes" which in turn allows for "nuclear acquisition or genocide – or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan". What the heck does this mean? It was not a "maniacal regime" that launched the 9/11 attacks; the US did not stay clear of the "maniacal regime" of Saddam Hussein but instead sold it the poison gas used against the Kurds; and the Iranians (who are arguably less "maniacal" than the Israelis) have no nuclear weapons programme.

What all this points out is that Thomas Friedman, one of the most widely read editorial writers in the country, is confused and unreliable when it comes to the Middle East. And, his relying on a conservative military historian venting in the National Review does nothing to sharpen his perception. What is worse is that none of this prevents Friedman from telling us that the US government, which he has just accused of utter failure for decades, now has the responsibility to tell the people of the Middle East some "hard truths". And what might they be?...MORE...LINK